9empire and kennethgriffin have to be the same person. LeBron fans are the most annoying but you two are incomprehensibly stupid, regardless of how old you really are or how hard you're trolling. I feel like I actually lost time reading two posts that didn't take me a minute total to read. You've been unblocked for one day and I already know I have to put you and silk on ignore already...probably bandwagonsplash. That tazb guy is better than any of you.

The part about it being a business is hilarious tho. The leap is out of this world.

Don't even waste the energy to give them the satisfaction of letting them know you read their post. Just block them once and for all.

And, above all, let me know what you thought about my post! Those are questions I really want to hear thoughts about. Sorry if it (the comment) is more rambling than content.

The part about it being a business is hilarious tho. The leap is out of this world.

Yes very funny.

I guess you are the one that thinks making billions of dollar is not a business.

Like I said, they didn't pay players the money they do now and becoming a NBA star was not even a dream. Today, it is a kids dream to become a professional athlete. They go to EBO camps and play in traveling leagues. Kids are trained to become basketball players. There are sports agents who make millions of dollars just negotiating a contract.......

Don't even waste the energy to give them the satisfaction of letting them know you read their post. Just block them once and for all.

And, above all, let me know what you thought about my post! Those are questions I really want to hear thoughts about. Sorry if it (the comment) is more rambling than content.

Rambling is valid content...those are good questions. I'm not answering them now lol...but I'll do so tomorrow. One set of crazy stats are the assist numbers Wilt started to put up in the mid to late 60's.

To be fair to the "Bigger/stronger/faster" crowd...im sure they dont think evolution works in 20 years....but that increased interest and vast sums of money being on the line have made exceptional athletes more likely to be found young and groomed for the game.

Which I dont disagree with. I just dont think it makes them better at basketball.

I was a young teen during the early 80's in Philly following every step of that great 83 Sixers and Doctor J, but I generally think basketball is better today than it has ever been.

It's not just the athlete getting better, it's that they copied the moves of their idols and improved upon it. It was said during the 80's that Doc mimicked the moves of Connie Hawkins and Elgin Baylor and took it to another level. Same thing for Dominigue and Jordan. The game is better today simply because there are more examples, more film, a library of great players in the past, where you can pattern your game on.

Also, the advent of international basketball has helped develop the game, as well. The talent pool is larger, with the whole world to draw from.

I believe Pat Riley stated that someday in the NBA, there would be a team of Magic Johnsons. I haven't seen one since.

And given the fact that there were players shooting .932 from the line in 1959, that virtually everyone today would be doing that? And this past season, the NBA shot .753 from the line. In 1959, the NBA shot .756.

How many other Kareem's have you seen since 1989? Where are those centers today shooting the "sky-hook?"

Where are the Shaq's of 2000? Surely the league would be filled with 7-1 325 lb players by now.

Conversely, how does a 6-8 Kevin Love not only lead the league in rebounding a couple of years ago, and by a wide margin, but at 15.2 rpg in only 36 mpg? BTW, those that saw Jerry Lucas play, would tell you that he was every bit the player that Love is today.

BTW, how many of you have read about Swen Nater? 6-11 white guy, who led the NBA in rebounding in 1980, at 15.0 rpg, and in only 35 mpg. Keep in mind that the NBA averaged 45 rpg that season, and in this past season it was at 42 rpg.

How does a 37 year old, 6-2 Steve Nash lead the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg?

How does a 6-11 Andrew Bogut lead the league in blocks per game three years ago?

And how bad were the defenses of the 60's and 70's in the NBA? Kareem played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond (who was a full 6-11, and had a higher standing reach than Chamberlain)...and his career high game was 34 points. Not only that, but he seldom shot 50% in any games against Nate, and his FG% in those games was around 44%.

And take a look at KAJ's FG%'s in the 70's, and when he was at his peak. He had seasons of .539, .529, .518. and even .513 in a season in the middle of the 70's.

How about an old KAJ in the 80's. He was burying the likes of Hakeem on a nightly basis. In ten straight games, a 38-39 year old Kareem averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting. He also had three games of 40+, including one of 46 points, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. And in the same week he was plastering Hakeem with that 46 point game, he shelled Patrick Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 (while Ewing scored nine points on 3-17 shooting.) This from a KAJ who could barely get off the ground. And in the decade of the 80's, Kareem never shot below .564 (until his last two season and at ages 41 and 42.) He also had his two highest seasons of his career in the 80's, at .604 and .599.

How come Artis Gilmore, at his peak, was shooting .575 in the NBA in the 70's, and yet, in the decade of the 80's, he had six seasons of .618 or better (and another at .597), including seasons of .670 and .652. Think about this...in the 76-77 season, and at age 27, Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting. In the 84-85 season, at age 35, Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting. BTW, in Gilmore's first ten h2h games against Hakeem, and at ages 35 and 36, he averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting.

Watch footage of the relatively unknown Dave Cowens, who BTW, outplayed Kareem in a game seven of the Finals. Is someone honestly going to say that he wouldn't be a first-class center in today's NBA? He was "only" 6-9 (and would be over 6-10 in today's NBA), but he was relentless, and had range of up to 20 ft.

Kevin Durant? Had there been a 3pt line back in the 70's, I would be willing to bet that Bob McAdoo would have a near equal in terms of shooting. As it was, McAdoo had a season of 34.5 ppg, in a league that scored 102.6 ppg, on .512 shooting, as well as shooting .805 from the line.

And if there are those that would concede that Kareem could be a great player in today's NBA, then what about the 6-10 Moses Malone? Malone routinely mopped the floor with a near-prime KAJ. In their 40 career h2h's, Moses pounded KAJ, and even moreso in their post-season h2h's.

And centers like Gilmore, McAdoo (who routinely outscored KAJ h2h), Cowens, and Lanier were winning their share of battles with a prime Kareem, too. BTW, how about this: In Wilt's last two seasons, in years in which he seldom even shot the ball, he had 11 h2h games with the 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier (who would be listed at 7-0 today), and in those 11 games, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... .784 shooting from the field. And in his last season, and in six h2h games against a prime Kareem, he held Kareem to .450 shooting (while shooting .737 himself.)

Watch footage of Pistol Pete. He put Jason "White Chocolate" Williams to shame in any comparisons between the two. In fact, he did things with a basketball, in the 60's, which have not been duplicaed since. And how about players like Earl Monroe and Tiny Archibald?

Dunking? Look at the footage of David Thompson. He was dunking in eighth grade in the 60's. How about the 5-9 Calvin Murphy, who was dunking in high school. MJ supposedly had a 44+ inch vertical. Google Gus Johnson and "the Nail." Here was a man who was 6-6, 230 lbs, and was shattering NBA backboards, and who probably had a vertical of at least Jordan's.

The point is, even with this supposed "global game", the truly great players, and I mean those with unbelievable skills and/or athleticism, have been very few-and-far-between. You can also make the argument that players like Kobe, LeBron, a peak Dirk, Durant, and a handful of other's, have been special in this era. And you would be right. But let's not act like everyone has had that kind of talent.

And the fact is, basketball has been played since the 1890's. The game has changed little since. It's still played on courts and baskets with the same dimensions, and a same-size ball (although the ball is much better today than what it was 50 years ago.) It is played by the same number of players. And, aside from a couple of major rules changes (the shot-clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt line in the late 70's), it is essentially played the same way (I know, there have been tweaks with other rules, but for the sake of argument, their impact was limited...and most were put in place in the 50's and before.)

Jlip's earlier response, using PHILA's footage, was right on. Those that claim that dribbling was "weak" in the 60's (and they always use West as an example), has been trashed. There were children in the 60's dribblingn between their legs and behind-their-backs (and the Globetrotters in the 50's were doing so.) There is footage of little known Em Bryant going full court and dribbling behind his back along the way. Here again, Earl the Pearl, and Pisto Pete were doing that stuff in the 60's, as well. Oh, and if West were a poor dribbler, who supposedly couldn't go to his left...just how come the rest of the NBA couldn't figure that out? The man was routinely putting up 40+ point playoff games. In fact, West was often considered the greatest guard in the history of the game by the mid-70's (and in league's which had Monroe, Maravich, Frazier, and Oscar.)

I could go on. Players like Rick Barry, who was essentially Larry Bird before Larry was. Dr. J, who was doing the same spectacular dunks that MJ would do some 10 years later. Bill Sharman, who was as good an outside shooter as we have in the game today (and would be near the very top in FT shooting.) Lucas, who as I mentioned earlier, was every bit the rebounder that Kevin Love is today, and with the same long-range capability (look up the term "Lucas Layup.")

The game has actually changed little, and the greats of the 60's and 70's, would be the greats in the current NBA. And vice-versa.

Thing about eras to me is....the more I think about it im not sure how to define them. You have kids(I hope...) on here talking about what prime Kobe would do in this era after he has good games vs teams where...9 guys were playing in his prime.

People will claim Bird couldnt do this or that....and with a bad back he has a near 50 point triple double guarded by guys who played into the 2000s.

Say people like Mcgee would dominate the 60s when he played guys smaller than average 60s bigmen in college and didnt dominate them.

So much of this era talk is just pulled out of the ass of someone who doesnt even remember the 90s.....

Many reasons for the numbers changing...but the players have been on roughly the same level as long as ive been watching(mid 80s).

And I was watching a bunch of people who came into the league in the 70s.....

Roert Parish came out in 1976(at age 23 mind you..) and at 40 he dropped 26/9 on 90% shooting on a guy who was one of the best defensive bigmen...in 2007.

The more I think aout it I have a hard time dismissing just about any star from 1960s or so to now. Some had numbers better or worse than they would in other times....on other teams. But the basketball they were capable of?

Eh.

Im not sure era matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAZERUSS

I believe Pat Riley stated that someday in the NBA, there would be a team of Magic Johnsons. I haven't seen one since.

And given the fact that there were players shooting .932 from the line in 1959, that virtually everyone today would be doing that? And this past season, the NBA shot .753 from the line. In 1959, the NBA shot .756.

How many other Kareem's have you seen since 1989? Where are those centers today shooting the "sky-hook?"

Where are the Shaq's of 2000? Surely the league would be filled with 7-1 325 lb players by now.

Conversely, how does a 6-8 Kevin Love not only lead the league in rebounding a couple of years ago, and by a wide margin, but at 15.2 rpg in only 36 mpg? BTW, those that saw Jerry Lucas play, would tell you that he was every bit the player that Love is today.

BTW, how many of you have read about Swen Nater? 6-11 white guy, who led the NBA in rebounding in 1980, at 15.0 rpg, and in only 35 mpg. Keep in mind that the NBA averaged 45 rpg that season, and in this past season it was at 42 rpg.

How does a 37 year old, 6-2 Steve Nash lead the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg?

How does a 6-11 Andrew Bogut lead the league in blocks per game three years ago?

And how bad were the defenses of the 60's and 70's in the NBA? Kareem played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond (who was a full 6-11, and had a higher standing reach than Chamberlain)...and his career high game was 34 points. Not only that, but he seldom shot 50% in any games against Nate, and his FG% in those games was around 44%.

And take a look at KAJ's FG%'s in the 70's, and when he was at his peak. He had seasons of .539, .529, .518. and even .513 in a season in the middle of the 70's.

How about an old KAJ in the 80's. He was burying the likes of Hakeem on a nightly basis. In ten straight games, a 38-39 year old Kareem averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting. He also had three games of 40+, including one of 46 points, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. And in the same week he was plastering Hakeem with that 46 point game, he shelled Patrick Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 (while Ewing scored nine points on 3-17 shooting.) This from a KAJ who could barely get off the ground. And in the decade of the 80's, Kareem never shot below .564 (until his last two season and at ages 41 and 42.) He also had his two highest seasons of his career in the 80's, at .604 and .599.

How come Artis Gilmore, at his peak, was shooting .575 in the NBA in the 70's, and yet, in the decade of the 80's, he had six seasons of .618 or better (and another at .597), including seasons of .670 and .652. Think about this...in the 76-77 season, and at age 27, Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting. In the 84-85 season, at age 35, Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting. BTW, in Gilmore's first ten h2h games against Hakeem, and at ages 35 and 36, he averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting.

Watch footage of the relatively unknown Dave Cowens, who BTW, outplayed Kareem in a game seven of the Finals. Is someone honestly going to say that he wouldn't be a first-class center in today's NBA? He was "only" 6-9 (and would be over 6-10 in today's NBA), but he was relentless, and had range of up to 20 ft.

Kevin Durant? Had there been a 3pt line back in the 70's, I would be willing to bet that Bob McAdoo would have a near equal in terms of shooting. As it was, McAdoo had a season of 34.5 ppg, in a league that scored 102.6 ppg, on .512 shooting, as well as shooting .805 from the line.

And if there are those that would concede that Kareem could be a great player in today's NBA, then what about the 6-10 Moses Malone? Malone routinely mopped the floor with a near-prime KAJ. In their 40 career h2h's, Moses pounded KAJ, and even moreso in their post-season h2h's.

And centers like Gilmore, McAdoo (who routinely outscored KAJ h2h), Cowens, and Lanier were winning their share of battles with a prime Kareem, too. BTW, how about this: In Wilt's last two seasons, in years in which he seldom even shot the ball, he had 11 h2h games with the 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier (who would be listed at 7-0 today), and in those 11 games, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... .784 shooting from the field. And in his last season, and in six h2h games against a prime Kareem, he held Kareem to .450 shooting (while shooting .737 himself.)

Watch footage of Pistol Pete. He put Jason "White Chocolate" Williams to shame in any comparisons between the two. In fact, he did things with a basketball, in the 60's, which have not been duplicaed since. And how about players like Earl Monroe and Tiny Archibald?

Dunking? Look at the footage of David Thompson. He was dunking in eighth grade in the 60's. How about the 5-9 Calvin Murphy, who was dunking in high school. MJ supposedly had a 44+ inch vertical. Google Gus Johnson and "the Nail." Here was a man who was 6-6, 230 lbs, and was shattering NBA backboards, and who probably had a vertical of at least Jordan's.

The point is, even with this supposed "global game", the truly great players, and I mean those with unbelievable skills and/or athleticism, have been very few-and-far-between. You can also make the argument that players like Kobe, LeBron, a peak Dirk, Durant, and a handful of other's, have been special in this era. And you would be right. But let's not act like everyone has had that kind of talent.

And the fact is, basketball has been played since the 1890's. The game has changed little since. It's still played on courts and baskets with the same dimensions, and a same-size ball (although the ball is much better today than what it was 50 years ago.) It is played by the same number of players. And, aside from a couple of major rules changes (the shot-clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt line in the late 70's), it is essentially played the same way (I know, there have been tweaks with other rules, but for the sake of argument, their impact was limited...and most were put in place in the 50's and before.)

Jlip's earlier response, using PHILA's footage, was right on. Those that claim that dribbling was "weak" in the 60's (and they always use West as an example), has been trashed. There were children in the 60's dribblingn between their legs and behind-their-backs (and the Globetrotters in the 50's were doing so.) There is footage of little known Em Bryant going full court and dribbling behind his back along the way. Here again, Earl the Pearl, and Pisto Pete were doing that stuff in the 60's, as well. Oh, and if West were a poor dribbler, who supposedly couldn't go to his left...just how come the rest of the NBA couldn't figure that out? The man was routinely putting up 40+ point playoff games. In fact, West was often considered the greatest guard in the history of the game by the mid-70's (and in league's which had Monroe, Maravich, Frazier, and Oscar.)

I could go on. Players like Rick Barry, who was essentially Larry Bird before Larry was. Dr. J, who was doing the same spectacular dunks that MJ would do some 10 years later. Bill Sharman, who was as good an outside shooter as we have in the game today (and would be near the very top in FT shooting.) Lucas, who as I mentioned earlier, was every bit the rebounder that Kevin Love is today, and with the same long-range capability (look up the term "Lucas Layup.")

The game has actually changed little, and the greats of the 60's and 70's, would be the greats in the current NBA. And vice-versa.

I believe Pat Riley stated that someday in the NBA, there would be a team of Magic Johnsons. I haven't seen one since.

And given the fact that there were players shooting .932 from the line in 1959, that virtually everyone today would be doing that? And this past season, the NBA shot .753 from the line. In 1959, the NBA shot .756.

How many other Kareem's have you seen since 1989? Where are those centers today shooting the "sky-hook?"

Where are the Shaq's of 2000? Surely the league would be filled with 7-1 325 lb players by now.

Conversely, how does a 6-8 Kevin Love not only lead the league in rebounding a couple of years ago, and by a wide margin, but at 15.2 rpg in only 36 mpg? BTW, those that saw Jerry Lucas play, would tell you that he was every bit the player that Love is today.

BTW, how many of you have read about Swen Nater? 6-11 white guy, who led the NBA in rebounding in 1980, at 15.0 rpg, and in only 35 mpg. Keep in mind that the NBA averaged 45 rpg that season, and in this past season it was at 42 rpg.

How does a 37 year old, 6-2 Steve Nash lead the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg?

How does a 6-11 Andrew Bogut lead the league in blocks per game three years ago?

And how bad were the defenses of the 60's and 70's in the NBA? Kareem played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond (who was a full 6-11, and had a higher standing reach than Chamberlain)...and his career high game was 34 points. Not only that, but he seldom shot 50% in any games against Nate, and his FG% in those games was around 44%.

And take a look at KAJ's FG%'s in the 70's, and when he was at his peak. He had seasons of .539, .529, .518. and even .513 in a season in the middle of the 70's.

How about an old KAJ in the 80's. He was burying the likes of Hakeem on a nightly basis. In ten straight games, a 38-39 year old Kareem averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting. He also had three games of 40+, including one of 46 points, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. And in the same week he was plastering Hakeem with that 46 point game, he shelled Patrick Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 (while Ewing scored nine points on 3-17 shooting.) This from a KAJ who could barely get off the ground. And in the decade of the 80's, Kareem never shot below .564 (until his last two season and at ages 41 and 42.) He also had his two highest seasons of his career in the 80's, at .604 and .599.

How come Artis Gilmore, at his peak, was shooting .575 in the NBA in the 70's, and yet, in the decade of the 80's, he had six seasons of .618 or better (and another at .597), including seasons of .670 and .652. Think about this...in the 76-77 season, and at age 27, Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting. In the 84-85 season, at age 35, Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting. BTW, in Gilmore's first ten h2h games against Hakeem, and at ages 35 and 36, he averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting.

Watch footage of the relatively unknown Dave Cowens, who BTW, outplayed Kareem in a game seven of the Finals. Is someone honestly going to say that he wouldn't be a first-class center in today's NBA? He was "only" 6-9 (and would be over 6-10 in today's NBA), but he was relentless, and had range of up to 20 ft.

Kevin Durant? Had there been a 3pt line back in the 70's, I would be willing to bet that Bob McAdoo would have a near equal in terms of shooting. As it was, McAdoo had a season of 34.5 ppg, in a league that scored 102.6 ppg, on .512 shooting, as well as shooting .805 from the line.

And if there are those that would concede that Kareem could be a great player in today's NBA, then what about the 6-10 Moses Malone? Malone routinely mopped the floor with a near-prime KAJ. In their 40 career h2h's, Moses pounded KAJ, and even moreso in their post-season h2h's.

And centers like Gilmore, McAdoo (who routinely outscored KAJ h2h), Cowens, and Lanier were winning their share of battles with a prime Kareem, too. BTW, how about this: In Wilt's last two seasons, in years in which he seldom even shot the ball, he had 11 h2h games with the 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier (who would be listed at 7-0 today), and in those 11 games, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... .784 shooting from the field. And in his last season, and in six h2h games against a prime Kareem, he held Kareem to .450 shooting (while shooting .737 himself.)

Watch footage of Pistol Pete. He put Jason "White Chocolate" Williams to shame in any comparisons between the two. In fact, he did things with a basketball, in the 60's, which have not been duplicaed since. And how about players like Earl Monroe and Tiny Archibald?

Dunking? Look at the footage of David Thompson. He was dunking in eighth grade in the 60's. How about the 5-9 Calvin Murphy, who was dunking in high school. MJ supposedly had a 44+ inch vertical. Google Gus Johnson and "the Nail." Here was a man who was 6-6, 230 lbs, and was shattering NBA backboards, and who probably had a vertical of at least Jordan's.

The point is, even with this supposed "global game", the truly great players, and I mean those with unbelievable skills and/or athleticism, have been very few-and-far-between. You can also make the argument that players like Kobe, LeBron, a peak Dirk, Durant, and a handful of other's, have been special in this era. And you would be right. But let's not act like everyone has had that kind of talent.

And the fact is, basketball has been played since the 1890's. The game has changed little since. It's still played on courts and baskets with the same dimensions, and a same-size ball (although the ball is much better today than what it was 50 years ago.) It is played by the same number of players. And, aside from a couple of major rules changes (the shot-clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt line in the late 70's), it is essentially played the same way (I know, there have been tweaks with other rules, but for the sake of argument, their impact was limited...and most were put in place in the 50's and before.)

Jlip's earlier response, using PHILA's footage, was right on. Those that claim that dribbling was "weak" in the 60's (and they always use West as an example), has been trashed. There were children in the 60's dribblingn between their legs and behind-their-backs (and the Globetrotters in the 50's were doing so.) There is footage of little known Em Bryant going full court and dribbling behind his back along the way. Here again, Earl the Pearl, and Pisto Pete were doing that stuff in the 60's, as well. Oh, and if West were a poor dribbler, who supposedly couldn't go to his left...just how come the rest of the NBA couldn't figure that out? The man was routinely putting up 40+ point playoff games. In fact, West was often considered the greatest guard in the history of the game by the mid-70's (and in league's which had Monroe, Maravich, Frazier, and Oscar.)

I could go on. Players like Rick Barry, who was essentially Larry Bird before Larry was. Dr. J, who was doing the same spectacular dunks that MJ would do some 10 years later. Bill Sharman, who was as good an outside shooter as we have in the game today (and would be near the very top in FT shooting.) Lucas, who as I mentioned earlier, was every bit the rebounder that Kevin Love is today, and with the same long-range capability (look up the term "Lucas Layup.")

The game has actually changed little, and the greats of the 60's and 70's, would be the greats in the current NBA. And vice-versa.

Good post. The "bridge" argument is well known around here.

What are your thoughts on these questions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djahjaga

Why are some of the most mind-boggling stats from older eras?
What does that imply about the relative strength of the league then to now? What does it say about the way basketball (or basketball trends) has evolved or changed?
What are we to make of older players actually saying that players now are faster and stronger*?
How, if at all, can/could we make sense/compare the players/league then to the players/league now?**

*most recently I read that Gail Goodrich said something like this. I would assume he means across the league players are stronger and faster. No one's telling me Wilt wouldn't be one of the most athletic players in the league today.

**if I'm giving you full hypothetical ability, there's no point in saying "You can't compare them."

Originally Posted by Djahjaga
Why are some of the most mind-boggling stats from older eras?
What does that imply about the relative strength of the league then to now? What does it say about the way basketball (or basketball trends) has evolved or changed?
What are we to make of older players actually saying that players now are faster and stronger*?
How, if at all, can/could we make sense/compare the players/league then to the players/league now?**

*most recently I read that Gail Goodrich said something like this. I would assume he means across the league players are stronger and faster. No one's telling me Wilt wouldn't be one of the most athletic players in the league today.

**if I'm giving you full hypothetical ability, there's no point in saying "You can't compare them."

The players of today, in all sports, are generally bigger, stronger, and faster. Having said that though, basketball is more skills-based, than the other sports. And, as CavsFan has researched, the players of today are about equal in terms of height, as they were even 50 years ago...especially if factor in the "fudging" of height in the last 30 years.

Still, how do explain Larry Bird dominating in a league with Dr. J, Dominque Wilkins, even MJ...in the 80's? I mentioned Swen Nater earlier...a 6-11 white guy...who was outrebounding even Moses, Kareem, Gilmore, and many others in 1980.

And why hasn't James White, or Javale McGee, not been among the best players in the league? And we know that Shaq was 7-1 and 325+ lbs, but look up the name of Priest Lauderdale, who was listed at 7-4 and probably weighed as much as 350+ lbs. How come Lauderdale wasn't putting up "Shaq-like" seasons?

And how about Goodrich? Take a look at the footage that exists. Here was a 6-1 guard, playing against many 6-3+ guards, and still scoring 25+ ppg. He was not only exceptionally quick, he had excellent range,...and, he was driving to the basket as well as anyone that has ever played the game.

I have seen posters scoff at the players of the 60's. They were supposedly short, and unathletic. And yet, just a couple of seasons ago, we had a 6-8 white guy leading the NBA, and by a wide margin, in rebounding. In that same season, a 37 year old, 6-2 white guy, led the league in assists (and in only 33 mpg.) And a 6-11 white guy led the league in bpg. Oh, and a 7-0 white guy won the FMVP. I would contend that if you put together photos of the best players in the 50's, and mixed them in with Love, Nash, Bogut, Dirk, and Korver..., and asked a panel of folks who had never watched an NBA game to pick out the current players...that there would be an equal amount of the 50's players selected.

Another point. Read up on Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 and 230 lbs, and who probably had as high a vertical leap as MJ. Then watch the footage of him on YouTube (in it you will see a guy hitting 15+ ft jump shots with perfect form.) And after all of that, if I were to ask the typical uneducated poster on this forum, what kind of numbers that Gus was putting up in the 60's, I'm sure they would come back with something like 30-20 seasons. And yet, as great a player as Johnson was, he never approached seasons like that. How come? How come as gifted an athlete, and as skilled as he was,...how come he wasn't just abusing the short, skinny, nerdy, white players of the 60's NBA?

Furthermore, how come we have had players like the 6-7 Truck Robinson, or the 6-7 Ben Wallace, or the 6-5 Charles Barkley, or the 6-8 Dennis Rodman, winning rebounding titles in leagues filled with listed seven-footers? How come a 7-2 Kareem, and a 7-1 Shaq, won a combined one rpg title, in 39 combined seasons? Why didn't the 7-4 Mark Eaton, or 7-2 Rik Smits ever come close to winning rebounding titles?

And how do explain Adrian Dantley? 6-4, and 210 lbs, and with only about 15 ft range, and yet, he was putting up several 30+ ppg, .550 FG% seasons? How could Dantley be considered one of the greatest post players of all-time? In leagues that had Kareem, Gilmore, and Moses.

I have had posters claim that the "modern" NBA started with the arrival of Magic and Bird. How do explain that the first four MVPs in the 80's, all played in the 70's? Or that the scoring and rebounding leaders in the first half of the decade of the 80's, all played in the 70's?

Carry that even farther. Take any year you like...and claim that that was the year in which the NBA became what we see today. And I will counter that argument with the players and their numbers, from just the season before.

You can argue that the game has slowly evolved to where it is today. You won't get an argument from me. But, the evolution has been minimal. The players of today, on average, are slightly taller, slightly bigger, slightly more athletic, than those of 30-40-50 years ago. But, the very best players of those eras were clearly as gifted as any of today.

Where are the 2000 Shaq's? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the best centers of the 2013 NBA are better than a prime Shaq? Does anyone really believe that a prime Shaq could not step right into 2013, and pick up where he left off in the 2000 Finals?

How about a '95 Hakeem? How many centers today, are anywhere close to the level that he played at? Does anyone not believe that a '95 Hakeem would be the best center in the game right now?

MJ in the early 90's? Think about this. An old, washed up, shell of what he had been, was still capable of 20 ppg seasons, and 40 point games...in the early 00's.

Magic? How about Magic in '96? He had been out of the league for several years, was fat, out of shape, fighting AIDs, and yet... 15 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, on .466 shooting, and in less than 30 mpg.

By now most here know about a 38-39 year old Kareem just blowing away a young Hakeem and Ewing. And yet, a prime Kareem in the 70's, (and yes, the best player in the game...at least until '79), had his share of "losses" against the likes of Cowens, McAdoo, Gilmore, and Lanier. And he was brutalized by the 6-10 Moses in the majority of their 40 career h2h's (and this was a near-prime Kareem BTW.) So, if there are those that are willing to concede that Kareem would be a force in today's NBA, then how about Cowens, McAdoo, Gilmore, Lanier, and yes, Moses? Oh, and how about a past-his-prime Nate Thurmond reducing Kareem to just awful numbers in the majority of their h2h's? A Thurmond whose peak was in the 60's. And yet a Thurmond who was regarded as only the third, or fourth best center of the 60's (behind Russell, Wilt, and possibly Reed.)

I could go on. Maravich, Barry, Oscar, West, Bellamy, Lucas, Reed, Unseld, Hayes, Monroe, Frazier, Havlicek, Greer, Archibald, Thompson, Dr. J, and many other's. They were just as brilliant against the players that were playing during, and after they retired, as they were against the players who were playing just before they arrived. Why?

I enjoy the posts LAZER, I always learn something new and often find a new perspective/stance to consider when reading them.

I appreciate the kind words. And BTW, I am not just a fan defending the players of the 60's and 70's. I have respect for all of the great players who have played the game. I have Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, and LeBron in my all-time top-15 list. And players like MJ, Hakeem, Magic, and Bird. As well as Kareem, Oscar, West, Russell, Moses, and Wilt.

I think the position that the greatest players transcend eras is pretty easy to defend. But what do we say to people who argue that the marginal talent in the league is better now?

In other words, Dr. J, Wilt, Bird and Magic, Shaq, etc. will be great in any era, but what about the depth of the league? Is the 12th guy on a team now better than the 12th (or even 10th) guy in 1960?

I'm ambivalent on this one, but I don't have a problem with accepting it as plausible.

I can give you a great example of the "depth" of the NBA in the 60's. How about the '67 Lakers? They had future HOFer Gail Goodrich. They had another guard, Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard) who would average 24 ppg the very next season with Seattle. They had another guard, Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg the very next season. At PF was Fred Hetzel, who would average 22 ppg the very next year with the Warriors. At center was journeyman Darrell Imhoff, a solid double-double man. And backing him up were two seven-footers, Mel Counts (who had very good range for a seven-footer, and who could also play PF), and Henry Finkle.

Oh, they also had West and Baylor...or a somewhat equivlent to LeBron and Wade. West and Baylor averaged 55 pg between them, and while they both missed some games...here was the most remarkable stat...that loaded Laker team only went 36-45!

In fact, you could down the rosters of the Hawks, Royals, and Knicks...all loaded with HOFers and talented players...and all of them had losing records. The Warriors, with Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond, Jeff Mullins, and Clyde Lee...went 44-37. The Celtics, with a boat-load of HOFers, and a roster that could go 10 deep, went 60-21, and were shelled in the ECF's...by the 68-13 Sixers.

The players of today, in all sports, are generally bigger, stronger, and faster. Having said that though, basketball is more skills-based, than the other sports. And, as CavsFan has researched, the players of today are about equal in terms of height, as they were even 50 years ago...especially if factor in the "fudging" of height in the last 30 years.

Still, how do explain Larry Bird dominating in a league with Dr. J, Dominque Wilkins, even MJ...in the 80's? I mentioned Swen Nater earlier...a 6-11 white guy...who was outrebounding even Moses, Kareem, Gilmore, and many others in 1980.

And why hasn't James White, or Javale McGee, not been among the best players in the league? And we know that Shaq was 7-1 and 325+ lbs, but look up the name of Priest Lauderdale, who was listed at 7-4 and probably weighed as much as 350+ lbs. How come Lauderdale wasn't putting up "Shaq-like" seasons?

d how about Goodrich? Take a look at the footage that exists. Here was a 6-1 guard, playing against many 6-3+ guards, and still scoring 25+ ppg. He was not only exceptionally quick, he had excellent range,...and, he was driving to the basket as well as anyone that has ever played the game.

I have seen posters scoff at the players of the 60's. They were supposedly short, and unathletic. And yet, just a couple of seasons ago, we had a 6-8 white guy leading the NBA, and by a wide margin, in rebounding. In that same season, a 37 year old, 6-2 white guy, led the league in assists (and in only 33 mpg.) And a 6-11 white guy led the league in bpg. Oh, and a 7-0 white guy won the FMVP. I would contend that if you put together photos of the best players in the 50's, and mixed them in with Love, Nash, Bogut, Dirk, and Korver..., and asked a panel of folks who had never watched an NBA game to pick out the current players...that there would be an equal amount of the 50's players selected.

Another point. Read up on Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 and 230 lbs, and who probably had as high a vertical leap as MJ. Then watch the footage of him on YouTube (in it you will see a guy hitting 15+ ft jump shots with perfect form.) And after all of that, if I were to ask the typical uneducated poster on this forum, what kind of numbers that Gus was putting up in the 60's, I'm sure they would come back with something like 30-20 seasons. And yet, as great a player as Johnson was, he never approached seasons like that. How come? How come as gifted an athlete, and as skilled as he was,...how come he wasn't just abusing the short, skinny, nerdy, white players of the 60's NBA?

Furthermore, how come we have had players like the 6-7 Truck Robinson, or the 6-7 Ben Wallace, or the 6-5 Charles Barkley, or the 6-8 Dennis Rodman, winning rebounding titles in leagues filled with listed seven-footers? How come a 7-2 Kareem, and a 7-1 Shaq, won a combined one rpg title, in 39 combined seasons? Why didn't the 7-4 Mark Eaton, or 7-2 Rik Smits ever come close to winning rebounding titles?

And how do explain Adrian Dantley? 6-4, and 210 lbs, and with only about 15 ft range, and yet, he was putting up several 30+ ppg, .550 FG% seasons? How could Dantley be considered one of the greatest post players of all-time? In leagues that had Kareem, Gilmore, and Moses.

I have had posters claim that the "modern" NBA started with the arrival of Magic and Bird. How do explain that the first four MVPs in the 80's, all played in the 70's? Or that the scoring and rebounding leaders in the first half of the decade of the 80's, all played in the 70's?

Carry that even farther. Take any year you like...and claim that that was the year in which the NBA became what we see today. And I will counter that argument with the players and their numbers, from just the season before.

You can argue that the game has slowly evolved to where it is today. You won't get an argument from me. But, the evolution has been minimal. The players of today, on average, are slightly taller, slightly bigger, slightly more athletic, than those of 30-40-50 years ago. But, the very best players of those eras were clearly as gifted as any of today.

Where are the 2000 Shaq's? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the best centers of the 2013 NBA are better than a prime Shaq? Does anyone really believe that a prime Shaq could not step right into 2013, and pick up where he left off in the 2000 Finals?

How about a '95 Hakeem? How many centers today, are anywhere close to the level that he played at? Does anyone not believe that a '95 Hakeem would be the best center in the game right now?

MJ in the early 90's? Think about this. An old, washed up, shell of what he had been, was still capable of 20 ppg seasons, and 40 point games...in the early 00's.

Magic? How about Magic in '96? He had been out of the league for several years, was fat, out of shape, fighting AIDs, and yet... 15 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, on .466 shooting, and in less than 30 mpg.

By now most here know about a 38-39 year old Kareem just blowing away a young Hakeem and Ewing. And yet, a prime Kareem in the 70's, (and yes, the best player in the game...at least until '79), had his share of "losses" against the likes of Cowens, McAdoo, Gilmore, and Lanier. And he was brutalized by the 6-10 Moses in the majority of their 40 career h2h's (and this was a near-prime Kareem BTW.) So, if there are those that are willing to concede that Kareem would be a force in today's NBA, then how about Cowens, McAdoo, Gilmore, Lanier, and yes, Moses? Oh, and how about a past-his-prime Nate Thurmond reducing Kareem to just awful numbers in the majority of their h2h's? A Thurmond whose peak was in the 60's. And yet a Thurmond who was regarded as only the third, or fourth best center of the 60's (behind Russell, Wilt, and possibly Reed.)

I could go on. Maravich, Barry, Oscar, West, Bellamy, Lucas, Reed, Unseld, Hayes, Monroe, Frazier, Havlicek, Greer, Archibald, Thompson, Dr. J, and many other's. They were just as brilliant against the players that were playing during, and after they retired, as they were against the players who were playing just before they arrived. Why?

Your "bridge argument" is persuasive. You may be the only one I've heard make those arguments. A couple clarifications though, Kareem had a more accurate skyhook in the 80's than the 70s. By the 80s, he had perfected that shot to a level that was really unstoppable. It would be unstoppable today.

In the 70s, KAJ had a more varied offensive game. Look at the film. Also, I have no doubt most of the great players in the past would be great players today, but many players from the 50s and some from the 60s would not be able to play in today's league. Look at the film, especially the 50s, the game was much more primitive. It's really pretty clear. If I'm not mistaken, most 50s shooters were still shooting with set shots. Correct? The jump shot was started by a single player in the 50s. Now, c'mon.

Another point is on Wilt and Russel's stats. Anyone really think they could average those stats in today's league? 50ppg? 28rpg? There is a reason for "anomalous" stats like that. Rules maybe, less athletic players on defense, less sophisticated strategies on defense, the pace of the game,things like that.

The point is those type of numbers tend to show sometimes a vast difference in today's NBA, and those eras.